huxley
I believe God has given us the Morals, I believe he is the Law giver and Yes he decides what bad or good.

as to slavery, i would like it if you could give me a verse are part of scripture were God commends it( note: I am not saying that there is no such verse in Bible, I just don't Know of one)
Then we can talk about it.

Is there a God given Law against Slavery? No not directly, but I would say that now days it would falls under
" love thy Neighbour as Thyself" Matthew 22:39 ( law given to use in the New Testament)
But back in the old Testament , I do not know

GOD_LOVES:

huxley
I believe God has given us the Morals, I believe he is the Law giver and Yes he decides what bad or good.

as to slavery, i would like it if you could give me a verse are part of scripture were God commends it( note: I am not saying that there is no such verse in Bible, I just don't Know of one)
Then we can talk about it.

Is there a God given Law against Slavery? No not directly, but I would say that now days it would falls under
" love thy Neighbour as Thyself" Matthew 22:39 ( law given to use in the New Testament)
But back in the old Testament , I do not know

What is the basis for your belief that god decides what is good and what is bad?

I gave the example of slavery - How do we know that slavery is morally bad?

Yes, there is no where in the bible in which slavery is condemned. In fact, god gives instructions on how to undertake this vile trade in the OT and in the NT god/Paul advises slaves on how they must behave. Imagine if god had said something like;

[size=16pt]
Thou MUST NOT take other humans as thy slaves, nor MUST thou sell other humans into slavery. Thou MUST NOT take away the freedom of other humans and treat them as thine property.
[/size]

Could that have been taken as an explicit ban on slavery. Look, I am not very clever, certainly not as god. But I came up with that one in less that 20 seconds.

huxley:

What is the basis for your belief that god decides what is good and what is bad?

I gave the example of slavery - How do we know that slavery is morally bad?

Yes, there is no where in the bible in which slavery is condemned. In fact, god gives instructions on how to undertake this vile trade in the OT and in the NT god/Paul advises slaves on how they must behave. Imagine if god had said something like;

[size=16pt]
Thou MUST NOT take other humans as thy slaves, nor MUST thou sell other humans into slavery. Thou MUST NOT take away the freedom of other humans and treat them as thine property.
[/size]

Could that have been taken as an explicit ban on slavery. Look, I am not very clever, certainly not as god. But I came up with that one in less that 20 seconds.

You can come up with anything you want to Hux, but as Christians, the law of God is there to ‘guide’ us. He has also given us the sprit of discernment, of what is right/wrong. Jesus was trying to teach us something with the adulterous woman, ‘Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone’. That doesn’t meant committing Adultery is right, but judging you neighbour isn’t either. what you call morals, is the spirit of God in Me, guiding me through right andnwrong. Thats what I beleive, you have a right to what you beleive.

GOD_LOVES:

Is there a God given Law against Slavery? No not directly, but I would say that now days it would falls under
" love thy Neighbour as Thyself" Matthew 22:39 ( law given to use in the New Testament)
But back in the old Testament , I do not know

Like most of the New Testament, this verse (Matthew 22: 39) was copied from the Old Testament by the redactor of Matthew. In fact, there is little that is original in the gospels (Mark, Matt, Luke and John). The phrase, themes and concepts are copied either from the OT text or from the Pagan cults of the time.

Here is Leviticus 19: 18;
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.


So in spite of the injunction to "Love thy Neighbour" within a few passages of the same document god is giving instructions on how to treat the neighbouring tribes and how to take them into slavery. Can you see a contradiction?

It is a general academic consensus that the word "Neighbour" in this context meant your fellow-tribesman. So to an Israelite, a neighbour would be another fellow Israelite and not a Canaanite, Hitite or an Egyptian. Hence, the reason the Jews practised slavery by obtaining their slaves from neighbouring tribes.

Further, there is a long secular history of the Golden Rule. Socrates is known to have made similar pronouncements without the aid of god.

Ujujoan:

You can come up with anything you want to Hux, but as Christians, the law of God is there to ‘guide’ us. He has also given us the sprit of discernment, of what is right/wrong. Jesus was trying to teach us something with the adulterous woman, ‘Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone’. That doesn’t meant committing Adultery is right, but judging you neighbour isn’t either. what you call morals, is the spirit of God in Me, guiding me through right andnwrong. Thats what I beleive, you have a right to what you beleive.

What law of god do you live by? I presume you think slavery is morally wrong, correct? Why is it morally wrong? God never said it was wrong. So are you being guided by moral laws other than those given by god?

The problem with you Christian is that you are not consistent with your positions. When faced with moral dilemmas that are not cover by god's laws as given in the bible where would you turn?

BTW, the story of the woman caught in adultery is a fraudulent addition into the gospel of John. It does not exist in the earliest extant version of John and some modern bibles now admit this. If you are interested, check out the scholar book by Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus,

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217420888&sr=8-2



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfSuninCn0&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6m07nmLe60&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkZnIJoY3ZY&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDjZK8SMBxE&feature=related

Does the fact that no nairalander can give a concrete answer to your question make your stand morally right?

Huxley,
You are doing a great job forcing people to use their Neo-cortex more constructively, most people are just damn intellectually lazy, they want to be spoon fed with information and told how to live their lives.

Morality is a set of codes and customs adopted and agreed upon by either the majority of a society's population or by a few people who are custodians of that society. Morality is different from society to society and sometime between clans. Morality is often integrated with the religious belief of a people.

There is no universal morality but Morality usually evolves, to set the society on the path of progress. Retrogressive morals always lead to a retrogressive society and as time goes by, societies learn to change their morals to conform to their development ideals.

For example, it is morally alright for the Jews to kill and steal for from their enemies during difficult time, but is against God to kill and still from a fellow Jew. (Moses killing an Egyptian was not even significant).

As of slavery, it is only in modern times that slavery is becoming immoral, all great biblical men of had slaves and concubines(sex slave), and it was not a sin then. Also some societies allow marriage between close relatives like uncles, cousins and nieces, while it is morally wrong in some. Some can marry two sisters also (Jacob)

The one wife one husband rule was a European moral, because stealing of women by the powerful few was making the society unstable (remember the Trojan war was over a woman). The Jews of the Bible were allowed to marry as many women as you can afford.

The guy's just bodering between paronia and plain madness. Easy Hux, you might just find out you are beginning to hear things too

Ujujoan:

The guy's just bodering between paronia and plain madness. Easy Hux, you might just find out you are beginning to hear things too

How can it be bad that I ask these questions? You guys have clearly given up on thinking.

huxley:

How can it be bad that I ask these questions? You guys have clearly given up on thinking.

No, you've celarly given up on common sense. Thats why you ask irritating and useless questions. Why would you bother us when you have your brian?? Dont tell me you've got something else up there

Ujujoan:

No, you've celarly given up on common sense. Thats why you ask irritating and useless questions. Why would you bother us when you have your brian?? Dont tell me you've got something else up there

It don't matter whether I got a brain or not. In fact, I think there's a big void up there. With what little grey cells I have got left, I manage to ask questions that you guys have proven uniquely incapable of answering. So it can't really be a handicap having only half a brain as I have.

@Huxley,

It don't matter whether I got a brain or not. In fact, I think there's a big void up there. With what little grey cells I have got left, I manage to ask questions that you guys have proven uniquely incapable of answering. So it can't really be a handicap having only half a brain as I have.

If you care to read what and digest people's response so far, you will have your answer. But since the answers are not in line woth your preconceptions, you say others are incapable of answering.

Now let me help you a little by explaining some few things. The law as seen in the Bible was for a reason (please study Paul's letters to the Romans). The dos and don'ts mentioned in the OT were not by any means exhaustive. That one situation is not specifically called out does not mean that there aren't principles that should guide our judgement under such circumstances. This is why the Bible talks about the spirit and and the letter of the law.

There is a spirit behind the laws, which we can refer to as principles. These can be seen in secular settings in the form of a constitution. The constituion is never exhaustive but provides a principle to guide the future of a nation. Law suits are filed when two or more parties are in disagreement over the interpretation of the constituion to that situation. Judges (who can be considered like Pastors) make a judgment in light of their understanding of what the constituion says. They make a judment based on the principles that are enshrined in the constitution.

If we can apply that common sense to the Bible, then you have your answers to the issue of slavery that seems to be keeping you awake at night.

Tayo-D:

@Huxley,
If you care to read what and digest people's response so far, you will have your answer. But since the answers are not in line woth your preconceptions, you say others are incapable of answering.

Now let me help you a little by explaining some few things. The law as seen in the Bible was for a reason (please study Paul's letters to the Romans). The dos and don'ts mentioned in the OT were not by any means exhaustive. That one situation is not specifically called out does not mean that there aren't principles that should guide our judgement under such circumstances. This is why the Bible talks about the spirit and and the letter of the law.

There is a spirit behind the laws, which we can refer to as principles. These can be seen in secular settings in the form of a constitution. The constituion is never exhaustive but provides a principle to guide the future of a nation. Law suits are filed when two or more parties are in disagreement over the interpretation of the constituion to that situation. Judges (who can be considered like Pastors) make a judgment in light of their understanding of what the constituion says. They make a judment based on the principles that are enshrined in the constitution.

If we can apply that common sense to the Bible, then you have your answers to the issue of slavery that seems to be keeping you awake at night.

I get your drift. But where is the principle under which slavery is immoral? The bible goes to great lengths to condemn some very harmless behaviour but is silent on the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it does give instruction on how to treat slaves. Should it be condemn under Leviticus 19: 18?

Well it depends who is taken as our "neighbour". There is simply no moral debating and agonizing over the issue. Why would the bible say "Love your neighbour" and in almost the same breath give instructions on who to take as slaves?

I say again, under what principle is slavery immoral?

And these are the laws dictated by god himself. Check these out;


Exodus 21: 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Exodus 20: 13 "You shall not murder."


These two laws are separated by only a few hundreds of words. Which takes precedents and what is the spirit or framework for deciding which takes precedent?

You say I ignore your answers. Far from it. The answers thus far have been unsatisfactory. I shall repeat the questions again so that there is absolutely no doubt as to what the questions are;

1) Under what principle or spirit is slavery immoral in the bible given the Leviticus 19: 18 prescribes neighbourly love, but within the same text also gives instructions for the slave trade.

2) Under what principle must one refrain from putting to dead a child who curses their parent?

3) How would civil society today function with laws such as in the bible that are internally contradictory and inconsistent?

4) Under what principle should we reject Exodus 21: 17 in view of what Jesus said in Matthew 5: 17 - 20?

So there are some things which are wrong which god has not commanded them to be wrong?  How do we know what such things are?

Hi Huxley, the simplest form that I see fit to answer your questions is that we are called to love. We are called to love God and our neighbour and ourselves. By nflicting pain on others you do not love them. Slavery is wrong because it inflicts mental, emotional, and physical pain.

The wrongs don't have to be higlighted or listed out in order for you to know that it is wrong. But paying attention to the commandments of God, you will see that in all of them is love. The opposite of love is hate and when you hate you cause harm, whatever will cause harm to yourself or others and in so doing to God because we are God's creation and it breaks his heart when we hurt, is wrong.


God's Spirit helps us to discern also. His Spirit helps convicts us, but that is only for those who believe in God and his Word.

~Lady~:

Hi Huxley, the simplest form that I see fit to answer your questions is that we are called to love. We are called to love God and our neighbour and ourselves. By nflicting pain on others you do not love them. Slavery is wrong because it inflicts mental, emotional, and physical pain.

The wrongs don't have to be higlighted or listed out in order for you to know that it is wrong. But paying attention to the commandments of God, you will see that in all of them is love. The opposite of love is hate and when you hate you cause harm, whatever will cause harm to yourself or others and in so doing to God because we are God's creation and it breaks his heart when we hurt, is wrong.


God's Spirit helps us to discern also. His Spirit helps convicts us, but that is only for those who believe in God and his Word.

So you are able to discern that slavery is wrong without recourse to the laws of god? How is it possible for humans to know of the great thing "love" is without instructions from god?

Tell, if you told Abraham or Moses or any other Jews who owned slaves then that slavery was wrong, how would you have have to justify your reasoning? What defense would they have had against your position?

Is morality time-dependent?

So you are able to discern that slavery is wrong without recourse to the laws of god?

No you are able to discern that slavery is wrong in regards to the laws of God.

How is it possible for humans to know of the great thing "love" is without instructions from god?

I don't understand your question. Are you asking how humans are supposed to know of the great thing love without it being an instruction from God? Because it is an instruction from God, you must have missed that part.

Tell, if you told Abraham or Moses or any other Jews who owned slaves then that slavery was wrong, how would you have have to justify your reasoning? What defense would they have had against your position?

First of all, the slavery of that day was of servitude, u know like houseboy, housegirl, or maid, not the one invented by white people for oppression.

Don't mistakenly think that the context in which words are used today are the same context in which they were used back then.
For example brothers, sisters referred to blood brothers, sisters as well as cousins and nephews and such and in the hebrew language there is no word for cousin only for brother and sister. Unlike today and in the english language where you have the words cousins and brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces as separate words.

Lack of understanding of the tone in which people back then spoke has led to a lot of controversy in the Christian faith, that is why the Protestant Christians feel like crucifying the Catholic Christian for their beliefs. They lack the understanding of the time in which their Holy Book was written and therefore lack understanding in what is contained and what is meant.
Understanding history is an important factor in understanding the Bible.

It does become difficult however, because the Isrealites were freed from slavery. That's the kind of slavery that is condemned. The one that is meant to inflict harm or oppression on a people or the one that goes against the will of the person.

During the time of Abraham and Moses slaves were actually treated as family and if a person had no sons or daughters their possessions usually transfered to their slaves.

I hope this helps.

~Lady~:

No you are able to discern that slavery is wrong in regards to the laws of God.

I don't understand your question. Are you asking how humans are supposed to know of the great thing love without it being an instruction from God? Because it is an instruction from God, you must have missed that part.

First of all, the slavery of that day was of servitude, u know like houseboy, housegirl, or maid, not the one invented by white people for oppression.

Don't mistakenly think that the context in which words are used today are the same context in which they were used back then.
For example brothers, sisters referred to blood brothers, sisters as well as cousins and nephews and such and in the hebrew language there is no word for cousin only for brother and sister. Unlike today and in the english language where you have the words cousins and brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces as separate words.

Lack of understanding of the tone in which people back then spoke has led to a lot of controversy in the Christian faith, that is why the Protestant Christians feel like crucifying the Catholic Christian for their beliefs. They lack the understanding of the time in which their Holy Book was written and therefore lack understanding in what is contained and what is meant.
Understanding history is an important factor in understanding the Bible.

It does become difficult however, because the Isrealites were freed from slavery. That's the kind of slavery that is condemned. The one that is meant to inflict harm or oppression on a people or the one that goes against the will of the person.

During the time of Abraham and Moses slaves were actually treated as family and if a person had no sons or daughters their possessions usually transfered to their slaves.

I hope this helps.

So moral behaviour is not absolute, but relative to time and place, correct? I thought god was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Are his laws mutable then?


Check out the following. Which of these would be unacceptable behaviour today and why?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

So moral behaviour is not absolute, but relative to time and place, correct? I thought god was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Are his laws mutable then?

Lol, no the meaning of a word is relative to the time and place, but behaviour is still constant.
If two people were called slaves but one is treated as a human and as a member of a family but the other is treated as a dog and beaten and nearly killed, does it mean that they are being treated the same? No.

They may be called the same thing but the behaviours towards them are different.

For example the word using the body language to agree. Generally in the west if someone nods it is an approval where as in China or Japan i'm not sure it is regarded as a disagreeing.

I have to run. Bye.

@Huxley,

I get your drift. But where is the principle under which slavery is immoral? The bible goes to great lengths to condemn some very harmless behaviour but is silent on the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it does give instruction on how to treat slaves. Should it be condemn under Leviticus 19: 18?

There is nothing wrong in owning a slave the way the bible supports. Like Lady puts forth, it is more like the Housegirl, Houseboy we have today and not the evil slavery witnessed in the 19th century. The main reasons why people were slaves in those days was because of debts. People become slaves so they could pay up the debts thy owe. That is why the bible mentions freeing a slave who pays his/debts. The guiding principle that governs all relationship is LOVE. That someone is your houseboy/housegirl/slave does not make them less a human. They ned to be treated with respect and given their rights. Think about these bible principles and tell me if they do not apply here:
* Do not muzzle the oxen that threshes the corn
* A laborer is worthy of his hire

Well it depends who is taken as our "neighbour". There is simply no moral debating and agonizing over the issue. Why would the bible say "Love your neighbour" and in almost the same breath give instructions on who to take as slaves?

Does love prevent you from having Butlers at home?

I say again, under what principle is slavery immoral?

Slavery in the sense of sevitude to pay back debt isn't immoral, but slavery as we saw in America and Europe is absolutely immoral because it violates the principle of love.

And these are the laws dictated by god himself. Check these out;

Exodus 21: 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Exodus 20: 13 "You shall not murder."

There is no confusion about these laws at all. Again let me share a secular scenario with you. It is against the law in the US to kill, but the State carries out the death penalty. In the NT, the Bible says God gives the State the power to carry out punishment, this is the same scenario we see in the OT. No one can just kill randomnly due to grievance, rather the State will order the execution after an investigation (ever heard of the Urim and Thurim in the OT)?

Tayo-D:

@Huxley,
There is nothing wrong in owning a slave the way the bible supports. Like Lady puts forth, it is more like the Housegirl, Houseboy we have today and not the evil slavery witnessed in the 19th century. The main reasons why people were slaves in those days was because of debts. People become slaves so they could pay up the debts thy owe. That is why the bible mentions freeing a slave who pays his/debts. The guiding principle that governs all relationship is LOVE. That someone is your houseboy/housegirl/slave does not make them less a human. They ned to be treated with respect and given their rights. Think about these bible principles and tell me if they do not apply here:
* Do not muzzle the oxen that threshes the corn
* A laborer is worthy of his hire
Does love prevent you from having Butlers at home?
Slavery in the sense of sevitude to pay back debt isn't immoral, but slavery as we saw in America and Europe is absolutely immoral because it violates the principle of love.
There is no confusion about these laws at all. Again let me share a secular scenario with you. It is against the law in the US to kill, but the State carries out the death penalty. In the NT, the Bible says God gives the State the power to carry out punishment, this is the same scenario we see in the OT. No one can just kill randomnly due to grievance, rather the State will order the execution after an investigation (ever heard of the Urim and Thurim in the OT)?

Where did you get the notion that slavery in the bible was principally a way to settle a debt? There would have been some form of indentured servitude but the wholesale buying & selling into slavery was also a part of the slavery landscape.

Any form of transaction on humans where oneself freedom is limited against their will is immoral. Even worse is when one is considered as property and can be handed down to descendants as objects. This is clearly what the bible orders. Such slaves could not even inherit the masters wealth.


=================================================================================
Check out the following. Which of these would be unacceptable behaviour today and why?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
=================================================================================

@ Hux

Be it as it may, slaves back then were "indebted" to their "masters" in one way or the other. They were also "bought" like you would buy a property & had value which appreciated or depreciated by some means of yard-stick. Owning slaves showed "class & wealth" quite unfortunate though & alot of people had slaves Abraham et al inclusive. It was "morally good" _{if I'm to go by your own words}

Today, these yard-sticks have changed and those laws don't apply "directly as quoted by you" that is not to say they should be disregarded. I forsee in the future that most of what we take today as normal or not morally wrong would be seen as "bad or morally wrong" by those of that time.

New forms of "bad" spring up everyday. Talk you your grandparents, they'll tell you they couldn't get away with things you are getting away with today & that's because the environmental conditions are gradually changing.

Life isn't static. . . good/bad/morals/laws are all relative to time & space

I gave the example of slavery - How do we know that slavery is morally bad?

Slavery - buying and selling of people in itself may not be entirely bad if you consider that football clubs buy and sell players (human beings) to each other. I was asking a friend yesterday why Ronaldo da lima agreed to go to Inter Milan where he was eventually severly injured and he replied that Barcelona SOLD him. Is this wrong?

What I consider to be wrong is the way slaves were treated during the American Slave trade.
If a slave is given rights that enable them to work themselves out of slavery then slavery in itself will be reduced to what we have in the corporate world where some employees sign bonds to work for a certain employer for a certain number of years.

logic1:

Slavery - buying and selling of people in itself may not be entirely bad if you consider that football clubs buy and sell players (human beings) to each other. I was asking a friend yesterday why Ronaldo da lima agreed to go to Inter Milan where he was eventually severly injured and he replied that Barcelona SOLD him. Is this wrong?

What I consider to be wrong is the way slaves were treated during the American Slave trade.
If a slave is given rights that enable them to work themselves out of slavery then slavery in itself will be reduced to what we have in the corporate world where some employees sign bonds to work for a certain employer for a certain number of years.

Really? Slavery can be good?

Is it moral for an an army in war to enter a city which has raised a white flag in surrender and FORCEFULLY enslave its citizens?

Is it moral for an army to attack and kill innocent unarmed civillians including women and children/infants?

Is it moral for an an army in war to enter a city which has raised a white flag in surrender and FORCEFULLY enslave its citizens?

Is it moral for an army to attack and kill innocent unarmed civillians including women and children/infants?

No sir, I don't think it is moral.

logic1:

No sir, I don't think it is moral.

Thank you.

Please do you find the injuction below immoral and will you consider it immoral if this exact same passage verbatim is written into our international law guiding warfare.

10. When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

11. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
12. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

13 .When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

14. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

15.This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.(Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

10. When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

11. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
12. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

13 .When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

14. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

15.This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.(Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

If the nations that were being refered to here had proven track records of inhuman behaviour and sparing any of them would result in a backlash so great that it would invalidate the victory won by the israelis then it might be argued that they should be killed.

Women and children generally pose no harm as opposed to men who can make an organized come-back.

Generally, we should do unto others what we expect them to do to us.

If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you

This I think is the best way to assimilate ALL the peoples of a foreign culture into your culture.

This is markedly different from a situation involving only a few foreigners.

Imagine if America colonizes a small African country and they intend to stay in that country as opposed to just plundering the country and returning to America. The only logical way to maintain dominance in that African country is to force the citizens to work for them.
If the small african country is also full of people with proven genocidal and inhuman traits then the decision can be justified.

Please I will appreciate it if you can answer the below questions straightforwardly then we can move on from there.

BaboonYansh:

Thank you.

Please do you find the injuction below immoral and will you consider it immoral if this exact same passage verbatim is written into our international law guiding warfare.

Please do you find the injuction below immoral and will you consider it immoral if this exact same passage verbatim is written into our international law guiding warfare.

We do not have situations similar to that faced by the jews so those laws would not be fit for international law today.

On the other hand if we had circumstances similar to that faced by the jews then it would be acceptable as international law.

logic1:



We do not have situations similar to that faced by the jews so those laws would not be fit for international law today.

On the other hand if we had circumstances similar to that faced by the jews then it would be acceptable as international law.

In other words, It is moral and acceptable as international law?

In other words, It is moral and acceptable as international law?

It is as moral as killing is moral in a war situation.

In other words, there are some situations (which we do not experience today) where it is moral and acceptable as international law.

logic1:

It is as moral as killing is moral in a war situation.

In other words, there are some situations (which we do not experience today) where it is moral and acceptable as international law.

ok. Thats noted.

Can you tell us these unique situations that we no longer experience today?